When we are brought into this world that choice is made by someone else. Is it not only fair that, if the situation calls for it, we should have the choice to end our life? This brings up the big question, I know most of you thought of. Should physician assisted suicide be legalized? Some people argue that it shouldn’t and other people argue that it should. In the United States, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is not illegal; however, helping another person commit suicide is considered a criminal act. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a …show more content…
In one of the articles I was provide with, “A Crime of Compassion,” describes the quality of life of a patient. The patient’s name was Mac and was under the care of, the author of the article, Barbara Huttman. Huttman describes Mac as “young, witty, macho cop … looking as if could protect the entire state” (Huttman 816). That he only went to the hospital for a cough he couldn’t get rid of. Only to later find out that he had lung cancer and was admitted to the hospital for months. Huttman states “Six months isn’t such a long time in the whole scheme of things, but it was long enough to see him lose his wit, his macho, his hair, his bowel and bladder control, his sense of taste and smell, and his ability to do the slightest thing for himself” (Huttman 816). Throughout the article I read that Mac was resuscitated fifty-two times (Huttman 815). His day to day life consisted of drooling, bedsores that covered his hips, fluids in his lungs, feces that burned his skin like lye, liquid food through a tube attached to his stomach, having to be changed every two hours, and bone to bone pain. Mac would beg her to let him go, but she legally couldn’t. She asked the doctor to call for a no-code so that they wouldn’t resuscitate him anymore. The doctor refused because he was a firm believer of prolonging …show more content…
Our government spends billions of dollars keeping terminally ill patients alive. Tom Binning explains in his article, “The economics of dying,” that it’s the people right to fight to the end. With that being said, it should also be up to them to finance that fight. So that our government can invest those billions in our future instead of our dying legacies. Binning states in his article, “If an individual or family wants medical efforts to fight for life, then that individual or private insurance should bear full cost”(Binning 18). To leave the family with a financial ruin is by no means a form of consolation. If people can’t afford to fight to the end, they should at least have the option to die with dignity and instead of
Death is inevitable, but do we ride it out until the bitter end or chose a quick and painless death? Many people are against the idea of physician-assisted suicide and others aren’t such as Faye Girish writer of the article “Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?” Published in 1999 in Insight on the News, she argues that the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide will allow those who wish to die a peaceful way to do so. Faye establishes the building of her credibility with plausible facts and statistics, great emotional appeal, and personal sources. However, throughout the article several times she attempts to use pity to guilt people into agreeing with her argument, uses celebrities as sources, and doesn’t cite some of her sources questioning her credibility and finally, her argument.
Physician assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for many years. Many people argue that people have the right to die by any means possible while others argue that human life should be precious and should be protected at all cost. While that is true that doesn't mean you can force someone to stay alive. Do you believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal for the terminally ill?
In Canada it has historically been a criminal offence to assist another person in ending his or her own life. This includes the inability of a person to seek a physician-assisted death. This law was recently overturned with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)[1]. The main issue was whether the prohibition on physician-assisted dying found in the Criminal Code[2] violated the claimants' rights under sections 7 and 15[3] of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms[4]. The claimants defined physician-assisted death and physician-assisted dying as a "situation where a physician provides or administers medication that intentionally brings about the patient's death, at the request of the patient."[5]
“Doctors and nurses have sworn to preserve life and relieve suffering – but how to do this when the only way to end suffering is to end life?” (Lewis Vaughn, “Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases” pp.594) Should there be an upper hand to make these decisions for our healthcare practitioners? Laws have been set in each state that determine the legalization of physician assisted suicide. Although Louisiana is a conservative state when it comes to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, it should be legalized in my opinion. Ethically, there are theories that support this as well as laws given to our practitioners. By rejecting physician-assisted suicide, patients and their families are suffering needlessly.
Over the last few years there has been great debates over rather or not physician Assisted Suicide should be legal or not. Physician assisted suicide is a catalyst to the inevitable and should be legalized nationwide and regulated by the Government. Issues like this are usually looked at with an emotional standpoint instead of a logical one. The level of controversy shadows that of John Steinbeck’s novel of Mice and Men because George kills Lennie out of mercy, George understands that Lennie’s quality of life was not high. While people can understand the novel it seems to be difficult for them to understand the situation at hand. Most people especially family members do not understand because they are in denial or being selfish with the parent's
A patient who has a terminal illness suffer tremendously every day. Since there is no cure for any terminal illness, doctors ease the patient's pain by prescribing them pain medication up to their final days. If it is acceptable for a beloved pet to be put euthanized, how is it any different for a terminally ill patient to end their life by physician-assisted suicide? Currently, terminally ill patients are fighting for their right to die. There is a hand full of states that have passed the law that allows terminally ill adult patients, who have six months to live, to end their lives by euthanasia or better known as physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is when a doctor performs a patient a lethal amount of substances into a patient, to end their life. The state of Virginia
Every individual has to make choices in life; life can be seen as a plethora of crossroads veering off into different directions with every which way. Choices that can create or destroy life; in the blink of an eye a life could end, but in the same moment a new life could be brought into existence. The choice of physician-assisted suicide provides control, familiarity, and closure to the terminally ill patients. The patient is able to choose where he or she will be, when the time is right, and the ability to be surrounded around loved-ones and gain closure by saying goodbye in a timely-manner.
According to the article “Physician Assisted Suicide Fast Facts,” published in the CNN Wire, physician assisted suicide is only legal in five states. Because it is only legal in five states, it proves that there must be a hefty amount of controversy over the topic. Although many oppose physician assisted suicide, there are many reasons that advocates have supporting why it should be legalized. People have the right to their life, and if they want to end their life, it should be their choice. Physician assisted suicide allows terminally ill patients to end their suffering. Because physician assisted suicide is not harmful, vital organs could be saved and used in transplants for those who are fighting for their life. Through the process of physician
Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).
In the context of Case Study #1, the doctor must decide on whether or not he will hasten the woman’s death to alleviate her pain; he must decide whether or not there is a moral difference between killing someone and hastening their death to relieve suffering. The woman described has a continuously declining and invariably fatal
Most people hate going to the doctors office. Shots, bright lights, blood, and a whole lot of terrifying medical terms. But are they really the bad guys? In my opinion, they are not. Some people look to doctors as a way out, the one person who could help to end their suffering. So another question would be, what do the doctors do to stop these people from a slow, agonizing death? Not medications, not weekly doctors visits; Euthanasia, otherwise known as physician assisted suicide. Some people believe that it is morally unacceptable, but I stand with the patients, residents, and doctors who make this decision.
A policeman witnesses a man trapped underneath a burning truck. Desperate and in pain, the man asks the policeman to shoot him and save him the pain of dying a slow and insufferable death. As a result, he shoots. The policeman’s dilemma is commonly referenced in support of physician-assisted-suicide, or PAS. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are interchangeable terms which both lead to the death of an individual. Voluntary PAS is a medical professional, usually a physician, who provides medication or other procedures with the intention of ending the patient’s life. Voluntary PAS is the administration of medicine with the explicit consent from the patient. In terms of this paper, we focus on voluntary physician-assisted suicide in the
Do terminally ill patients have a right to die with the assistance of a physician? – Pros
Physician assisted suicide is requested by the terminally ill, typically when the pain from the illness is too much to handle and is not manageable through treatments or other medications. Assisted suicide is more of a broad term for helping someone die a good death, physician assisted suicide is where a medical doctor provides information and medication and the patient then administers the medications themselves. Euthanasia is also another term that is commonly heard, this refers to a medical doctor that voluntarily administers the lethal dose of medication to the patient when the patient requests it, due to not physically being able to do it themselves (Humphry, 2006). There pros and cons with this topic throughout the world, but is one of the biggest debated things here in the United States of America and to this day there are only five states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide (ProCon.org, 2015). The government should allow patients that are terminally ill the right to choose physician assisted suicide, why should they have to suffer when there is a way out.
1) Patients have the right to make their own informed decisions about if and how they die. When a chronically ill patient decides life is no longer worth living because of the insurmountable pain they are in, who are we to tell them differently? There are cases where attempts to cure are doing more harm than good, not only mentally and physically to the patient, but emotionally to his family and loved ones as well.